rav

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Judgments were rendered by Rav alone, by Rav Aḥa alone, by Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose by themselves.

Judgments were rendered by Rav alone, by Rav Aḥa alone, by Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose by themselves.

A person brought a suit before Rav Huna, He told him, bring me a person who climbs the date palm instead of me.

Rav Huna was a cowherd when he knew testimony for a person, who told him, come and testify for me. He answered him, give me my wages. It was stated thus: “One pays the judge for his time and the witness for his testimony.

There is no lengthening of the month, but sanctification of the month. Samuel says, sanctification of the month needs no less than ten [participants]120. Should Fellows be able to enter for the sanctification of the month? Rebbi Hoshaia said, I was a Fellow and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac took me to the sanctification of the month, but I do not know whether I was counted or not. It is obvious that he was not counted, but why? Was it because he was his son-in-law, or because Fellows are nor able to enter for the sanctification of the month? Rebbi Cahana said, I was a Fellow when Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya took me to the sanctification of the month and I was counted. This implies that Fellows enter for the sanctification of the month.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was standing praying. Rav Cahana came and stood behind him in prayer. When Rebbi Ḥiyya had finished, he sat down in order not to walk by him. Rav Cahana spent a long time praying. After he finished, he told him, is that your way to make your teacher suffer? He told him, I am a descendant of the House of Eli, of whom it is written: if the sin of the House of Eli would be atoned for by sacrifice and offering. By sacrifice and offering it cannot be atoned for, but it can be atoned for by prayer. He prayed for him, he reached old age while his fingernails remained red like those of a small child.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was standing praying. Rav Cahana came and stood behind him in prayer. When Rebbi Ḥiyya had finished, he sat down in order not to walk by him. Rav Cahana spent a long time praying. After he finished, he told him, is that your way to make your teacher suffer? He told him, I am a descendant of the House of Eli, of whom it is written: if the sin of the House of Eli would be atoned for by sacrifice and offering. By sacrifice and offering it cannot be atoned for, but it can be atoned for by prayer. He prayed for him, he reached old age while his fingernails remained red like those of a small child.

Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq: When the Heavenly Court sees that the earthly Court sanctifies it, they also sanctify it.

“One does not intercalate a year unless it be missing most of a month. How much is most of a month? 16 days. Rebbi Jehudah says two thirds of a month, 21 days.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only that the ˋOmer should be brought at the end of Nisan of equinoxes. Rebbi Yose said, before Passover. Rav Mattaniah said, only that lulav be taken at the end of Tishre of equinoxes.

One does not intercalate before New Year’s Day; if they did intercalate it would be invalid. But for an urgent need one may intercalate immediately after New Year’s Day. Nevertheless, only Adar is intercalated. Rebbi says, Nisan was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the New Moon appeared in time”? If it would appear; it did not appear. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the month was long”? If it would be, it never was.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

It was stated: One does not make public tender for slaves, securities, and movables. [What is public tender?] Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, announcement. Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves lest they flee, securities and movables lest they be stolen. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave be redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. But did we not state: “Real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans”? He answered him, but the human here is a free person. Ḥanania bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Rebbi, did you not teach us in your grandfather’s name, “except if he offered public tender”? He answered, yes, changed his mind, and acted following Rabban Gamliel.

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav quotes it from the words of the Torah. As all that I am showing you, the shape of the building and the shape … of all its vessels, so you shall execute. So you shall execute in all generations. Moses is king and prophet. Aaron represents Urim and Tummim. Assemble for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel, that is the Synhedrion; ask your father and he will tell you, etc. Song, after them went Hoshaia and half the officers of Judea. Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two large thanksgiving sacrifices being in procession going to their right on the wall going to the dung gate. Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession, only being taken by others.

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav quotes it from the words of the Torah. As all that I am showing you, the shape of the building and the shape … of all its vessels, so you shall execute. So you shall execute in all generations. Moses is king and prophet. Aaron represents Urim and Tummim. Assemble for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel, that is the Synhedrion; ask your father and he will tell you, etc. Song, after them went Hoshaia and half the officers of Judea. Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two large thanksgiving sacrifices being in procession going to their right on the wall going to the dung gate. Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession, only being taken by others.

Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if a High Priest sinned, one whips him. If you would say by 23, his elevation would be his degradation. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him by a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses, if one would return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They beat him. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiṭṭim. The next day, Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall, when Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, tomorrow I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel [from Egypt], He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt, He and all His Court. He asked him, why did you say these things? He told him, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good.

“The High Priest sacrifices while in deep sorrow but does not eat, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, the entire day. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves.” Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference], between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference]. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah is entering. Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos: interruption is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, if he was inside, he leaves; if he was outside, he did [not] enter. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he was inside, he enters; if he was outside, he did not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: a baraita is from Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Sanctuary he shall not leave, he may not leave with them, but he may leave after them. If they are unseen he can be seen; he leaves with them up to the city gate, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: The Sanctuary he shall not leave. If he left, he may not return.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning [during daytime] is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown [and one cannot infer anything.]

HALAKHAH: “He shall not add wives,” etc. Rav Cahana said, because of the sixth Yitream by Egla. What is written there? At least, I shall give you twice as many.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

“His mother’s sister’s husband”. But did we not state: “his stepson alone”? Rav said, if his mother-in-law’s son-in-law is forbidden, then certainly his stepdaughter’s husband. Explain it that she has sons and sons-in-law from him.

Rav went to sell hides for the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. He passed by a place where he found Rebbi Joḥanan sitting and asking: We have stated, “his stepson alone.” What is the situation of his stepson’s wife, his stepdaughter’s husband? A woman is like her husband and the husband is like his wife. Therefore, the situation of his stepson’s wife is that of his stepson, and the husband is like his wife.

Rav Ḥisda asked: If the third generation permitted the first generation’s wife? Is Phineas’s wife permitted to Moses? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one accepts the second and third generations with difficulty. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even with ease.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: “The lover and the hater,” etc. Rebbi Tevelai, Rebbi Abinna in the name of Rav: They stated this for the seven days of wedding festivities.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following open your mouth for the dumb.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following open your mouth for the dumb.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following open your mouth for the dumb.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Joseph. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short.

Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying, for it is said: the two men shall stand. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given, as it is said: who have the quarrel before the Eternal.

Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said (ben) [in the name of] Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: “One said to another, ˋwhere is my ox?’ He responded, ˋI do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ˋI require you to swear;’ the other said ˋAmen’. He is not liable.” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said (ben) [in the name of] Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: “One said to another, ˋwhere is my ox?’ He responded, ˋI do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ˋI require you to swear;’ the other said ˋAmen’. He is not liable.” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.

Does a judicial confirmation need a court? Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Samuel, Rav Bannai in the name of Samuel. One said, it should be confirmed either by the handwriting of the witnesses or the handwriting of the judges; the other said, even with one handwriting and one judge.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are tried during the day,” etc. From where this? They judged the people at all times. But this is a verse about what happened! Rav Samuel ben Rav Isaac said: so is the baraita: If they erred and judged in the night, their judgment stands, as the verse said: they shall judge the people at all times. He said, that is a statement.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are tried during the day,” etc. From where this? They judged the people at all times. But this is a verse about what happened! Rav Samuel ben Rav Isaac said: so is the baraita: If they erred and judged in the night, their judgment stands, as the verse said: they shall judge the people at all times. He said, that is a statement.

HALAKHAH: “In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity,” etc. Rebbi says, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written against the greatest, that one does not argue after the greatest, only prior to the greatest. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written before the greatest, that one does not argue prior to the greatest, only after the greatest. Rav said, do not argue, even after a hundred, the words of Rebbi Phineas.

From where that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: David told his men, each gird his sword, and after this, they were sitting in judgment about Nabal. Rebbi Thema bar Pappaias in the name of Rav Hoshaia: Also when disqualifying families one starts from the side.

HALAKHAH: “Three rows of students of the Sages,” etc. Rebbi Abba (bar) [Rebbi] Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It says here congregation, and it says there congregation. Rav brought it from a Mishnah; the Mishnah says “be a tail of lions and not a head of jackals.” The parable says, be a head of jackals but not a tail of lions. But we have stated: “If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row.”

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

You said, the order of strangling is the following: “One person draws in his direction, the other one draws in his direction.” Cahana asked before Rav: There, you say, “one draws in one direction, the other draws in one direction.” But here, you say, “one draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction.” He told him, there one is in front, the other in the back. But here, one is on one side, the other one is on the other side.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Ze`ura said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Ze`ura only on one count. Did not Rebbi Ze`ura say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Ze`ura he is guilty on two counts

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Think of it, if he erroneously has sexual relations with it. Should it be stoned because of him while he is not liable? Rebbi Simeon asked: Think of it, if he used it to plough on the Sabbath. Is he not being stoned while it is not liable? You have only, as Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained: With their silver and gold they made idols for themselves; it is not written “that they be extirpated” but that he be extirpated. As if a person say: the bones of X be ground up for he led his son to evil ways.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: This implies that one proceeds on the basis of a doubt. How is this? “X killed a person.” One proceeds to try him until his witnesses come. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one arrest a person in the market and insult him? But is it as follows: “X killed a person, and there are witnesses.” Let him be put under arrest until his witnesses come.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

From where about him who says, “you are my god”? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: They prostrated themselves before it, and sacrificed to it, and said, these are your gods, Israel. Then he should not be guilty unless he sacrifice, burn incense, and declare. Rebbi Yose said, the verse is written only for the disgrace of Israel. They prostrated themselves before it, not before Heaven. And sacrificed to it, not to Heaven. And said, not to Heaven. What about this? Saying is mentioned here and saying is said about one who leads astray. Since for saying mentioned about one who leads astray, saying is equated with acting, also for the saying mentioned here, we have to equate saying with acting.

Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its worship prescribed sons or daughters but he worshipped it with fathers or mothers, he is twice guilty. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed this; he thought that this was said following his teacher’s Rebbi Hila’s system and referred to Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. He told him, what do you have in your hand? It referred to the rabbis! He answered, did you need it for this?

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaia: he is guilty only if he steals money. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: he is guilty only if he shows contempt for money. What means showing contempt for money? Where do we hold? If about him who says, here you have five and give me for three, he is an idiot. Here you have three and give me for five, he is a regular person. But we deal with one who says, here you have five and give me for five.

If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rebbi Ba said, it was said as follows: if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He sees him, that he comes to take his money away from him, stands up against him and kills him. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila.

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He sees him, that he comes to take his money away from him, stands up against him and kills him. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila.

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He sees him, that he comes to take his money away from him, stands up against him and kills him. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila.

The following is obvious: A murderer who broke vessels or otherwise caused damage is liable to pay. If he continued to break until he came to the town, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hoshaia: One said, he pays, the other said, he does not pay. If the pursuer becomes the pursued, may one save the pursuer through the person of the pursued? An adult (who became) a minor, may one save the adult through the person of the minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state: “If his head and most of his body were born, one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life for another.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is different there since you do not know who is killing whom.

(Rav Huna said:) so far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? It is written, the genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover. Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far about his daughter’s daughter; from where his daughter? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to punishment (by extirpation), so much more for his daughter!

(Rav Huna said:) so far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? It is written, the genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover. Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far about his daughter’s daughter; from where his daughter? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to punishment (by extirpation), so much more for his daughter!

Rav Huna understood all of these [rules] from this verse: The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should nor uncover. And it is written, if a man take a woman and her daughter, it is taboo. Taboo-taboo for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, there is a prohibition upwards. Since downwards one requires marriage, so upwards one requires marriage. Since downwards they are burned, so upwards they are burned. Since downwards He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter.

Rav said, the Mishnah [deals with the case that the crime was committed] inside from the witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when he could not receive warning.

HALAKHAH: “He who steals the chalice,” etc. קסווה cista. Rav Jehudah said, it was a Temple vessel, as one says and the libation chalices.

Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Justice protects the one on the straight path but sin destroys the sinner. Evil deeds will pursue the sinner but He will reward the just. While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing, He will bestow grace on the meek. He will watch over the feet of his pious ones, but evildoers will be silent in the darkness. The wise will inherit honor, but shame will mark the stupid ones. Fences are made fences and doors doors. Is it so that fences make fences and doors doors? But so it is: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: If a person is careful the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him. What is the reason? All this God will do twice, three times with a man. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only if the person does not revert [to sin]. What is the reason? It does not say the triple thread “will never snap” but rather will not quickly snap. If you work on it, it will split.

Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Justice protects the one on the straight path but sin destroys the sinner. Evil deeds will pursue the sinner but He will reward the just. While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing, He will bestow grace on the meek. He will watch over the feet of his pious ones, but evildoers will be silent in the darkness. The wise will inherit honor, but shame will mark the stupid ones. Fences are made fences and doors doors. Is it so that fences make fences and doors doors? But so it is: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: If a person is careful the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him. What is the reason? All this God will do twice, three times with a man. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only if the person does not revert [to sin]. What is the reason? It does not say the triple thread “will never snap” but rather will not quickly snap. If you work on it, it will split.